© robert pitkethly 2009 1 intellectual property awareness & smes uk ip awareness survey 2006 ip...
TRANSCRIPT
1© Robert Pitkethly 2009
Intellectual Property Awareness & SMEs
UK IP Awareness Survey 2006
IP Awareness Survey report available at : http://www.ipo.gov.uk/ipsurvey.pdf Or http://www.ipo.gov.uk/press/press-release/press-release-2007/press-release-20070426.htm
IP Awareness Intermediation Study reports available at : http: //www.accaglobal.com/general/activities/research/reports/smallbusiness_research/rr_107
Dr. Robert Pitkethly
2© Robert Pitkethly 2009
IP AwarenessOne of IPRs roles is to act as an incentive to invest in innovation - but
1. Innovators must be aware that the IP system exists
2. Innovators must be sufficiently aware of the system to:
• Use the system efficiently
• Have a reasonable chance of obtaining the benefits offered
IP Awareness & IPR Non-use by SMEs are a common concern
- EPO/Roland Berger study (‘94) : 60% of non-patenting firms saw patents as little more than a name
- IP awareness promotion for SMEs by Tokyo Metropolitan Government- UK IPO (Awareness Information and Media) & IPAN
What is “Effective IP Awareness”?
3© Robert Pitkethly 2009
“Advanced” knowledge &
understanding of IPR use
(held by IP Professionals)
Value Awareness of
Benefits of IPRs
Effective Awareness of
How to use IPRs
Effective use of IPRs
(IP Management)
“Simple” knowledge &
understanding of IPR use
(for non-specialists)
Effective knowledge
of IPRs
Components of IP Awareness
Awareness of Users & Infringers Awareness of Owners & Creators
Value Awareness of
Benefits/Incentives of IPRs
Effective Awareness
of How to use IPRs
“Simple” knowledge &
understanding of IPR use
(for non-specialists)
“Advanced” knowledge
& understanding of IPR use
(held by IP Professionals)
Effective
Basic knowledge of IP Law
Effective
Management of IPRs
Effective
Complete knowledge
of IP Law
4© Robert Pitkethly 2009
UK IP Awareness Survey
• Respondents
– MDs / CEOs, Senior Managers responsible for IP
– Vary with firm size - smaller firms predominantly MD
• Survey Instrument
– 37 Questions
– Produced following 21 member IPAN input from industry, academia, professional & scientific associations, lawyers, patent attorneys & IPO
5© Robert Pitkethly 2009
UK IP Awareness Survey
• Sample Selection– Selected from UK IDBR maintained by UK ONS (includes Co. House & IR data)
– Weighted sampling scheme inc: 1-9, 10-49, 50-250, 250+ emps– Aim: +/- 3% with 95% confidence for statements about whole
population
• Response RatesNo. Employees 0-9 10-49 50-249 250+ n/a Total
IDBR Popln 1 752 040 168 180 30 045 6 980 1 957 605
Sample Size 5 240 5 390 5 198 4 172 20 000
Sample as % of Popl’n 0.30% 3.20% 17.30% 59.77% 1.02%
Achieved Sample 333 441 489 405 41 1 709
Response Rate 6.35% 8.18% 9.41% 9.71% 8.55%
(No significant non-response bias detected in comparing early & late replies)
6© Robert Pitkethly 2009
UK IP Awareness Survey
• Administration
– By Postal Questionnaire
– 20,000 Questionnaires sent out
– Mailing list produced by ONS directly from IDBR data
• Data entry
– Data entry from replies into spreadsheet for analysis (in this case by SPSS) carried out by UK IPO contractor
7© Robert Pitkethly 2009
Measuring IP Awareness• Classical Measurement Theory
– Creating scales by summing responses– Reliability measured using Cronbach’s Alpha (KR20 Score if Dichotomous)
• Item Response Theory– Primarily used in Psychometric and Educational testing– Uses a logistic model to link the probability of a correct response to
both respondent and question related parameters
– Rasch Models– adaptable due to firm and question separability (which distinguishes them from IRT)
– convert ordinal data to a metric scale– relatively robust in the face of missing data– adaptable to data varying with time and circumstances
This research used both CMT and a basic Rasch Model with dichotomous data
Pr(Success)
Ability
ICC
8© Robert Pitkethly 2009
1. IP Ownership & Innovation• Firms were asked if they created or owned any IPRs (T.1):
• Larger Firms also tend to innovate more than SMEs or Micro-Enterprises (T.2 but fewer)
Data Collection
No. of Employees 0-9 10-49 50-249 250+ Total
% of Respondents
1.Patents 7.0% 16.9% 29.2% 41.4% 9.2%
2.Trademarks 31.9% 53.4% 68.6% 90.5% 36.2%
3.Copyright 62.0% 54.1% 47.2% 55.2% 60.5%
4.Database Rights 13.1% 21.5% 17.8% 28.2% 14.4%
5. Other 12.3% 12.2% 6.9% 10.0% 12.1%
9© Robert Pitkethly 2009
2. Perceptions of IPRs’ importance
Non IPR based means of appropriation are also important (cf Levin & Klevorick, ‘87 & UK Innovation Survey ‘05)
Data Collection
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Confidentiality agreements
Secrecy
Trademarks
Lead-time over competitors
Copyright
Patents
Complexity of Design
Registered Designs
Other
Q. 11 Please indicate the importance to your business of each of the following methods to protect innovations:(T.3) (1. Unimportant 2. Not very Important 3. Important 4. Very Important 5. Essential) :
10© Robert Pitkethly 2009
3. Knowledge & Understanding
• The percentage of firms who (correctly) know that publication before filing invalidates a UK patent application, increases with firm size (T.4a).
This clearly shows the need for IP awareness promotion amongst SMEs and Micro-
enterprises.
Data Collection
Size (No. of Employees) Yes No Don't Know
0-9 11.2% 37.6% 51.2%
10-49 15.8% 26.6% 57.7%
50-249 21.0% 35.0% 44.0%
250+ 33.1% 32.9% 34.0%
Total 11.8% 36.6% 51.6%
11© Robert Pitkethly 2009
Measuring IP Awareness• Scale A included questions relating to IP Management• Scale B excluded questions relating to IP Management
• KR20 (Cronbach’s Alpha) for Scale A = 0.83 Scale B = 0.77• Firm Separation Reliability Score Scale A = 0.83 Scale B = 0.71
• Analysis carried out using SPSS (should have used Stata in retrospect to produce std errors for weighted data)
IP Awareness
12© Robert Pitkethly 2009
IP Awareness & Firm Size
IP Awareness increases with firm size whether IP Management is included or not
IP Awareness
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0-9
10-49
50-249
250+
Scale A (Inc IP Mgt)
FirmSize
(No.ofEmps)
IP Awareness (Fig.2)(Rasch Scale A inc IP Management)
13© Robert Pitkethly 2009
5. IP Policies• Firms were asked if their company had an overall IP Policy (T.19) & if they distributed it to staff (T.20) :
Data Collection
"Does your company have an overall IP Policy?
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
0-9
10-49
50-249
250+
ŅIf Yes - is it explained or distributed to staff?ŹÓ (% of firms answering Yes)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
0-9
10-49
50-249
250+
14© Robert Pitkethly 2009
6. IP Training• Firms were asked if their company provided any training in IP issues (T.21)
• The proportion of firms with IP training increases with firm size but is still less than the incidence of company IP policies.
• It is however about the level of the absolute proportion of firms with an IP policy which they distribute amongst their staff.
Data Collection
Is any training in IP issues provided by your company to its staff?ŹÓ (% of firms)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
0-9
10-49
50-249
250+
15© Robert Pitkethly 2009
CONCLUSIONS - I
16© Robert Pitkethly 2009
• It is possible to derive and use a valid and reliable measures of IP awareness
• The picture of IP awareness presented is consistent with what one might expect.– Larger companies tend to be more IP aware and have greater resources to
both find out about and manage IP
– SMEs and the mass of Micro-enterprises are effectively unaware of the IP system.
– There is variation with Industry sectors but this is less than the variation with firm size.
• IP awareness promotion is crucial to preserve IP created by SMEs & Micro-enterprises
17© Robert Pitkethly 2009
Do Firms Seek IP Advice?
Table 24 Š Replies to the question ŅHas your company ever sought advice on IPRs? Ó (% of firms) .
No. Employees 0-9 10-49 50-249 250+ Total
Yes 20.0% 25.1% 42.8% 72.7% 21.0%
No 77.5% 70.6% 51.1% 20.5% 76.2%
DonÕt Know 2.5% 4.3% 6.1% 6.7% 2.7%
18© Robert Pitkethly 2009
Where do Firms seek IP advice from?
19© Robert Pitkethly 2009
Who were the “Other” sources of advice?
• Auditors
• Trade/industry Associations
• Barristers, In-House
Barristers
• Books
• Business Consultants
• Business Link Organisations
• Chambers of Commerce
• Client In-House Patent Dept
• Company Secretary
• Local Government
• Friends
• Insurer
• Professional Bodies
(RIBA)
• Regional Technology
Centre
• US based sources
• Web ForumsFor Large Firms “Other” sources almost exclusively comprised Barristers or other
legal cousel
20© Robert Pitkethly 2009
Social Network Analysis
• Burt (1982) argues that players with access to networks with
“structural holes” or gaps enjoy high returns
• Brokers in such networks can arbitrage information by bridging
such holes• Communicating information and difficulties between groups
• Transferring or translating best practice
• Drawing analogies
• Synthesis
‘Awareness Gaps’ lack the competitive / arbitrage aspects of Burt’s networks but do reflect the need for intermediaries to bridge
information gaps.
21© Robert Pitkethly 2009
Information Intermediaries and Brokers
Social Network Literature:Burt (2007) found that “network data on direct contacts are sufficient to measure brokerage”
& “measurement can stop with the network of direct contacts”Gould & Fernandez (1989) observed that the vast majority of brokerage involves a single intermediary Professional Marketing Literature: Strambach (1995) the most important information source on consulting firms was colleagues/business
partners followed by references from other firmsEnke, Geigenmuller (2001) client referrals were”the single most important way of establsihing contact
between potential clients and consultants”
22© Robert Pitkethly 2009
Who gives SMEs business advice?
23© Robert Pitkethly 2009
Clients, Brokers and Experts
24© Robert Pitkethly 2009
Interviewee Selection
25© Robert Pitkethly 2009
Response Rates
• Potential Respondents were identfied, emailed, telephoned.• On average 25% of calls resulted in interviews.
• Semi-structured interviews conducted by telephone.
26© Robert Pitkethly 2009
Qualitative Interview Data
1. Interviews / “Expert” Opinion1. Anecdotal
2. Unrepresentative?
2. Quantitative Surveys1. Focussed “the paranoid or obsessed” reply?
2. Large Scale “the mostly uninterested or indifferent”
don’t reply?
Checking for Non-response bias and helping explain the problems of asking people to reply to questions about subjects they may not be interested in may be helped by Interviews - whether by Telephone or in person.
All data is potentially helpful if one knows where it does (and doesn’t) come from and can interpret it correctly.
27© Robert Pitkethly 2009
IP Experts - Patent & TM Attorneys
2. Venture Capitalists can be crucial in getting SMEs to contact IP experts
• Other research (Pitkethly, 2006) shows that Venture Capitalists (VCs) value the possession of IPRs by firms they are considering investing in.
“The start ups tend to be well catered for because venture capital now clearly looks for start ups to have some form of IP associated with it so some of the drive for it comes from the VCs themselves”. (PA11)
“as soon as someone else’s money is involved then IP becomes something that’s there from day one.” (PA11)
28© Robert Pitkethly 2009
IP Experts - Patent & TM Attorneys3. There is very little incentive for patent attorneys to market themselves to SMEs
“We’re in the fortunate position and indeed I suspect that most of the profession is that there’s far more work than there are people capable of doing it.” (PA5)
“There’s masses of work around. You don’t have to go out and hunt it. Which is a remarkably fortunate situation,” (PA5)
4. Patent Attorneys’ marketing activity primarily relates to overseas firms.
“To target SMEs for work is a very hard road … I’ve got to meet an awful lot of people before I find even one which has a bright idea. …if I go off to try and see half a dozen Japanese attorneys it’s a lot more productive.” (PA2)
“The risk with SMEs is that you put a lot of time into them and they’re often not the best type of clients to have.” (PA10)
29© Robert Pitkethly 2009
IP Experts - Patent & TM Attorneys
5. Some firms of patent attorneys do try to develop a reliable local SME practice
“I think that SMEs are one of the most important targets we should have since I foresee major competition in the future for foreign deriving work and I feel that its important to have close links to the small companies because the small ones grow larger. Whereas the large ones have their own patent departments.” (PA4)
30© Robert Pitkethly 2009
IP Experts - Patent & TM Attorneys
6. Referrals of work to Patent Attorneys generally come from a wide variety of sources- except Accountants
“For whatever reason they don’t refer a lot of work our way. I think its perhaps that accountants don’t think in legal terms.” (PA9)
“Well I don’t think I’ve ever had an accountant send me anything” (PA6)
“Have we ever had a referral from an accountant? I can probably not think of any. .... And yet any business above the trivial there’ll be an accountant involved”. (PA2)
31© Robert Pitkethly 2009
Intermediaries - Accountants
1. Costs are an issue facing accountants too
2. Accountants admit to referring little work
to Patent Attorneys“incredibly rare.” (A3)
“I don’t think I’ve ever spoken to a patent attorney” (A30)
“From personal experience I wouldn’t know a patent attorney to whom I would refer anybody” (A11).
32© Robert Pitkethly 2009
SME Clients
3. Recognising IP Costs but not IP Value is a critical hindrance to SME IP awareness“With SMEs there’s never enough time or resources so anything’s got to be low cost and low time. “(SME6)
“I think that probably unless people think they are onto a winning ticket will ignore the problems “ (SME50)
4. Some SMEs simply ignore IP issues “We just try to be quick into the market Just keeping ahead by being faster. “ (SME6)
“We’ve defended our name once or twice .. [but]It’s a rarity to be involved with this” (SME6)
”I’d give up straight away (if seeking IP advice).” (SME41)
33© Robert Pitkethly 2009
SME Clients
5. Web based IP resources can prove a significant help to SMEs “The (IPO) website is a godsend because advice costs an arm and a leg to use a patent agent and you can learn a lot by looking at the website and what patents other people have got and I’m not sure people are aware of that and how easy it is to use. “ (SME13).
“everything is done via the internet I would think everybody will do what I did just put patent attorney [and the place name] in and that’s it.” (SME16)
6. Industry Associations and Advice Centres also help raise IP awareness
34© Robert Pitkethly 2009
Current Research
1. Survey and Interview based study of IP Enforcement costs for
SMEs
2. Methodological Issues :
1. Access to SMEs (OFLIP Database)
2. Rarity of Litigation and the large number of SMEs
(two pronged approach through interviews & networks
AND surveys
3. The Logistics of large scale Surveys (web based surveys)
35© Robert Pitkethly 2009
SurveysPostal Surveys
1. Require postal costs
2. Need Data Entry
3. Simple paper questionnaires
4. Only require postal addresses
from databases
5. Reminders double/treble postal
costs
Web Surveys
1. Only require email
2. Data entry by respondents
3. Complex conditional question
sequences
4. Require email addresses which
are hard to find
5. Reminders almost cost free
6. Off the self systems now cheap
and sophisticated
The costs of finding individual email addresses from Databases and web searches (c7-14 per hour per searcher) MAY exceed the savings from no Postal, Reminder or Data entry costs.
Very large surveys may be easier using by post unless good email addresses are available.
36© Robert Pitkethly 2009
END
IP Awareness Survey report available at : http://www.ipo.gov.uk/ipsurvey.pdf Or http://www.ipo.gov.uk/press/press-release/press-release-2007/press-release-20070426.htm
IP Awareness Intermediation Study reports available at : http: //www.accaglobal.com/general/activities/research/reports/smallbusiness_research/rr_107